Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher EducationProof of Concept 2015 – An overview of the process and illustrative outcomes
November 2015
Author: Dr Sara BoothUniversity of Tasmania
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education2
Published by:Ako Aotearoa – The National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellencewww.akoaotearoa.ac.nz
ISBN 978-1-927202-87-6 (Online)ISBN 978-1-927202-88-3 (Print)
November 2014
DesignKimBdesign | [email protected]
This work is published under the Creative Commons 3.0 New Zealand Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike Licence (BY-NC-SA). Under this licence you are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work as well as to remix, tweak, and build upon this work non-commercially, as long as you credit the author/s and license your new creations under the identical terms.
Particating institutions:Auckland University of Technology
Lincoln University
Birmingham City University
The Arts University Bournemouth
Swinburne University of Technology
University of Tasmania
Victoria University
Project supporters:Office for Learning and Teaching, Australia
Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency, Australia
The Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities
Higher Education Academy, United Kingdom
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education i
Contents
Foreword and acknowledgements .........................................................................................................1
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................4
2. Project Methodology .....................................................................................................................6
2.1 Development of key performance indicators and performance measures .............................6
2.2 Self-review phase (using the online benchmarking tool) ........................................................7
2.3 Peer-review phase (face-to-face workshop) ...........................................................................8
2.4 Post validation phase (workshop summary sent to participants for verification) ....................8
2.5 Reporting phase including workshop outcomes and recommendations for improvement .....8
3. Results .........................................................................................................................................9
3.1 Key performance indicator 1: strategies to increase participation of priority learners ...........9
3.2 Key performance indicator 2: providing professional support for teaching staff ...................12
3.3 Key performance indicator 3: teaching quality .....................................................................13
3.4 Key performance indicator 4: curriculum quality ..................................................................15
3.5 Key performance indicator 5: peer-review of assessment ...................................................16
4. Key similarities and differences across three countries .............................................................18
5. Areas for sharing ........................................................................................................................20
6. Key recommendations for institutions resulting from the benchmarking process ......................20
7. Project evaluation .......................................................................................................................23
Value of the process ...................................................................................................................23
Areas for consideration where the process might be improved ................................................24
8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................24
9. References .................................................................................................................................25
Appendix A: List of participants ............................................................................................................26
Appendix B: Institutional strategic statements ......................................................................................27
Appendix C: Institutional demographics ...............................................................................................30
Appendix D: Glossary of terms .............................................................................................................32
Appendix E: Priority learners benchmarking framework: Example ......................................................33
Appendix F: Summary of quantitative responses (traffic light report) ...................................................34
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Educationii
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education International Peer-review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 1
Foreword and acknowledgementsOrganisational benchmarking can take many forms and can be used to drive a range of agendas. Universities and other tertiary institutions often invest considerable time and resources into benchmarking processes designed for funding, accountability or reputational benefit. Generally these focus on data collection about inputs, outputs (and very occasionally) outcomes. They tend to be highly summative.
The benchmarking trialled here is different. This is process benchmarking designed to foster self-assessment, evaluative conversations and quality improvement. It offers an opportunity for institutions to reflect on what they are doing in a structured way and then test what they are doing and how they are thinking about an issue or objective for improvement against other institutions that are thinking about the same thing. Furthermore, undertaking an international exercise allows us to explore tacit national assumptions about the way we develop services for the benefit of learners. Often unpacking the different terms we use in similar contexts is one of the most valuable things we do.
A big challenge for any exercise of this type is to balance off the effort involved in doing the work with the potential value-add. One of the attractions of this methodology is that it is not over-onerous to prepare and, as set out in this report, the potential gains are significant.
Following a presentation on the methodology used here at the New Zealand Academic Quality Agency Conference, this project was initiated in November 2014. Originally it was framed against support for priority learners as identified by the NZ Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-2019 (New Zealand Government, 2014), in particular supporting success for Màori and Pasifika learners. However, this brief naturally expanded as the work developed and interests of the seven participating universities were aligned.
We would like offer our sincere thanks to staff from each of the universities who participated in this international benchmarking project and the key agencies from New Zealand, Australia and the UK who gave it their support. The universities and agencies are acknowledged on the inside cover and all individual staff participating are listed in Appendix A.
All participating staff undertook the project in a spirit of collaboration and openness. Their willingness to engage with the project led to clear outcomes and recommendations.
We believe this proof of concept project has been successful. It was a fascinating, uplifting and most enjoyable two days with much rich discussion and several ‘take-home’ actions identified by participants. We encourage you to read this report and consider undertaking a similar exercise (whether national or international) yourselves.
Dr Peter Coolbear Dr Sara BoothNational Director, Ako Aotearoa Strategic Advisor – Quality [External],New Zealand University of Tasmania
September 2015
2 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Executive SummaryThis report provides an account of a proof of concept of an international process benchmarking exercise involving seven universities from New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. The universities were:
Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand Birmingham City University, United Kingdom Lincoln University, New Zealand Swinburne University of Technology, AustraliaThe Arts University Bournemouth, United KingdomUniversity of Tasmania, AustraliaVictoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
The participation of universities in Australia and the United Kingdom was facilitated by the Office for Teaching and Learning (OLT), Australia and the Higher Education Academy, United Kingdom.
Work started in November 2014 and the exercise was completed via a two day face to face peer review workshop held in Wellington, New Zealand in mid-July 2015. The Office for Learning and Teaching (Australia), the Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities and the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency, Australia supported the project and participated in the face-to-face workshop.
The type of benchmarking used in this project, process benchmarking, is a form of benchmarking that focuses on how results are achieved. It aims to examine, compare and improve performance of processes used in operations through a process of internal evidence-based self-review using a structured framework and then evaluative conversations around collated material from that framework. It is explicitly designed to be both formative and not too onerous for participants.
The value of these conversations is that they provide an external reference from which to re-evaluate internal self-assessment and thus share good practice, explore issues collegially and, where appropriate develop ideas for further action. Extending this to international colleagues further extends the external referencing and allows any institution to evaluate its practice and assumptions beyond those generally accepted within their own national system.
The participating universities were invited to undertake this benchmarking process against a choice of topics:
1. Strategies for increasing participation of priority (or non-traditional or disadvantaged) learners in tertiary education;
2. Provision of professional support for teaching staff;
3. Teaching quality;
4. Curriculum quality; and
5. Peer review of assessment.
The specific aims of the project were to:
1. Compare approaches to the priorities raised by New Zealand’s Tertiary Education Strategy to approaches to equivalent issues in Australia and the UK;
2. To compare approaches to improving teaching quality, curriculum quality and assessment;
3. To identify areas of good practice, areas for improvement/or development and areas for sharing;
4. To identify any common issues across institutional and national boundaries
5. To enhance our understanding of process benchmarking for quality improvement and quality enhancement purposes across Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom.
3 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
At the end of the two day workshop the aims of the project were achieved. Participants clearly valued the process and each has had areas of good practice affirmed and recommendations for internal action noted. Common issues across national boundaries were identified and areas for further sharing also noted. Each of these is summarised in the full report. There was particular interest in the United Kingdom’s Professional Standards Framework for teachers in higher education.
A particularly useful part of the discussion was unpacking some of the differences in terminology used by different countries. For instance, current policy and practice in New Zealand refers to acknowledging and accommodating learner diversity and sets explicit priorities, while in the United Kingdom and Australia similar issues of supporting disadvantaged learners are addressed in the language of “inclusivity”.
In planning this kind of work, consideration by peer-review partners needs to be given to the trade-offs between the range of topics to be covered and depth of discussion. Exploring fewer topics in more depth allows opportunities for better unpacking of the links between national and institutional policies and the effectiveness of the implementation of those institutional policies. It also allows for a more formal process of re-appraisal of self-ratings once each part of the peer review discussion has been completed.
Essentially, the methodology provides a structured and cost-effective framework for purposeful self-evaluation and then validation of that self-evaluation through discussion with external peers. There is a risk that different institutional contexts might prompt some discussants to talk past each other. This risk can be mitigated effectively by ensuring that at the start of the peer review process, each participating university has a broad understanding of key drivers and context for the others.
Our conclusion is that this is a methodology that has value both for national benchmarking exercises and international ones. It does, however, rely on considerable levels of mutual trust and a genuine enthusiasm for and open-mindedness about how best to serve our students in the future. We thank all our participants for being so ready to share their practice and ideas so openly. We thank their institutions for allowing them to do so.
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education4
1. Introductionassessment across Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom universities. Information on institutional contexts [including strategic plans and geographic information] for each participating institution are provided in Appendix B and C. Representatives from each of the participating universities attended face-to-face with the exception of the Arts University Bournemouth who sent through responses prior to the workshop.
The peer-review workshop was supported and also attended by representatives from Ako Aotearoa, the Office for Learning and Teaching, Australia (OLT), the Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities (AQA) and Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency, Australia (TESQA). A Glossary of Terms and acronyms is available in Appendix D (page 22).
The specific type of benchmarking used in this project is referred to as process benchmarking. Process benchmarking is a form of benchmarking that focuses on how results are achieved. It aims to examine, compare and improve performance of processes used in operations. In contrast, outcome benchmarking is a form of benchmarking that is results or ‘outcome’ focused and examines high level aggregate measures of performance (Stella and Woodhouse, 2007). As this was a ‘proof of concept’ benchmarking process, the decision was to test the benchmarking process only rather than benchmarking both processes and outcomes. The benchmarking methodology is derived from the Australasian Council on Open, Distance and e-Learning (ACODE) Benchmarking Framework (2014).
The specific aims of the project were to:
1. Compare approaches to the priorities
Universities are increasingly moving towards using benchmarking for quality improvement and quality enhancement purposes, particularly being able to compare academic standards across the higher education sector. Benchmarking can be defined as:
‘A learning process structured so as to enable those engaging in the process to compare their services/activities/products in order to identify their comparative strengths and weaknesses as a basis for self-improvement and/or self-regulation.’ (Jackson & Lund, 2000)
Having followed with considerable interest the work being done on peer review benchmarking in Australia, Ako Aotearoa commissioned an international benchmarking project using the benchmarking methodology developed by the universities of Tasmania, Deakin and Wollongong (Booth et al., 2011).
In this benchmarking project, Ako Aotearoa wanted to trial ‘a proof of concept’ benchmarking process not only across New Zealand universities but also involving universities in Australia and the United Kingdom. With the support of the Office for Learning and Teaching, Australia and the Higher Education Academy (HEA) in the UK, Swinburne University of Technology, the University of Tasmania, Victoria University, Melbourne, Birmingham City University and The Arts University Bournemouth joined Auckland University of Technology and Lincoln University in this peer review exercise.
Following individual self-evaluations by each institution, the culmination of this Benchmarking Project was a face to face peer review event hosted by Ako Aotearoa in Wellington, New Zealand on 15-16th July 2015.
The project supported the seven participating universities to compare their responses to priority1 or non-traditional learners as well as teaching quality, curriculum quality and
1 Priority learners (in this context Màori and Pasifika, but also at risk young people) are identified in the New Zealand Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-2019 (New Zealand Government, 2014)
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 5
raised by New Zealand’s Tertiary Education Strategy to approaches to equivalent issues in Australia and the UK;
2. To compare approaches to improving teaching quality, curriculum quality and assessment;
3. To identify areas of good practice, areas for improvement/or development and areas for sharing;
4. To identify any common issues across institutional and national boundaries; and
5. To enhance our understanding of process benchmarking for quality improvement and quality enhancement purposes across Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom.
6 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
2. Project Methodology
The benchmarking project began in November, 2014 and ran over 9 months. It engaged its participating universities over six distinct phases, including:
1. Development of key performance indicators and performance measures;
2. Self-review phase (using the online benchmarking tool);
3. Peer review phase (face-to-face workshop);
4. Post-validation phase (Workshop summary sent to participants for verification);
5. Reporting phase including a summary of workshop outcomes and recommendations for improvement; and
6. Evaluation.
The benchmarking methodology behind each of the six phases is now described in greater detail below (the Evaluation phase is summarised in Section 7).
DEVELOPMENT OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES2.1
The benchmarking framework (Appendix E) was informed by Ako Aotearoa’s strategic initiatives, OLT’s strategic initiatives, and quality assurance initiatives in higher education (AQA and TEQSA). The main objective was to trial a ‘proof of concept’ benchmarking exercise across three countries to learn about the benchmarking process. The benchmarking framework has five Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which include:
1. Strategies for increasing participation of priority (or non-traditional or disadvantaged) learners in tertiary education;
2. Provision of professional support for teaching staff;
3. Teaching quality;
4. Curriculum quality; and
5. Peer review of assessment.
Universities had a choice of focus areas to benchmark. These could be any one (or more) of the Performance Indicators. Each Performance Measure provided structured questions under each of the KPIs (see Appendix E for an example). The institutions were not required to respond to every KPI, but there had to be a comparator (at least 2 institutions) for each KPI.
Benchmarking format: The format for the benchmarking project includes a scoping statement, performance indicators, good practice statements and performance measures which are derived from the Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-learning (ACODE) benchmarking framework (2014). The key performance indicators have been drawn from the New Zealand Tertiary Education Strategy (2014-2019) supplemented by international HE policy and literature in the area.
Scoping statement describes what is considered in the benchmarking as well as clarifying what lies outside the scope of the project. The scope of the project covers an investigation and comparison of access and participation for priority leaners; teaching quality, curriculum quality and assessment.
Performance measures identify actions which lead to the achievement of good practice in performance areas.
Rating: The self-review process includes making a rating against each measure. To facilitate the self-review process, questions are provided under each measure to clarify their scope and provide guidance for the self-review teams. These questions were designed to elicit specific information to enable processes and
7 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
practices across participating institutions to be compared (Appendix E). The ratings for the performance measures are between Level 4 and
Level 1, with Level 4 being the most evident of quality outcomes and Level 1 showing the least amount of the evidence of quality (Table 1).
Table 1. Performance measures self-review guiding questions
Level 4 Yes Effective strategies are implemented successfully
Level 3 Yes, but Good strategies in place, some limitations or some further work needed
Level 2 No, but This area hasn’t yet been effectively addressed, but some significant work
is being done
Level 1 No No effective strategies e.g. not addressed, addressed only in isolated pockets,
notionally addressed but major barriers to implementation
Rationale provides institutions an opportunity to document key reasons for the performance rating and rationale under each performance indicator.
Evidence: There needs to be a strong correlation between the rating and the evidence provided. A high rating cannot be supported without evidence.
2.2SELF-REVIEW PHASE (USING THE ONLINE BENCHMARKING TOOL)
Each university undertook a self-review process. This process required each university to appoint an institutional coordinator to facilitate the coordination of the benchmarking project. These individuals liaised with Dr Sara Booth who coordinated the project across all universities. It was the responsibility of each university to organise a reference group for developing a coordinated university response for each key performance indicator using the self-review
template (Appendix E). Each institutional coordinator was assigned access to The University of Tasmania’s online benchmarking tool. Using their unique username and password (to ensure data security) participating institutions entered their self-review data into the online benchmarking tool. Final self-review reports were sent back to each institution for validation and checking.
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education8
2.3
2.4
2.5
PEER REVIEW PHASE (FACE-TO-FACE WORKSHOP)
The benchmarking project was underpinned by a peer review methodology (ACODE, 2014), based on process benchmarking. As described previously, process benchmarking is a form of benchmarking that focuses on how results are achieved. It aims to examine, compare and improve performance of processes used in operations (Stella & Woodhouse, 2007). The peer review phase included the following activities and documentation:
• In preparation for the peer review workshop, a peer review workshop document was prepared which included: A summary of key performance indicators, ratings and measures across all universities and areas of good practice, areas for improvement/development and areas for sharing (Appendix E).
• The peer review workshop documentation was sent out by email to the participating universities prior to the peer review workshop in preparation for the workshop.
• A face-to-face peer review benchmarking workshop was held over two days to benchmark the five key performance indicators, processes and data.
• At the start of the workshop universities were asked to provide a 15min presentation on their individual institutional contexts and rationale for being involved in the benchmarking project.
• A summary of the peer review workshop outcomes was recorded during the workshop and presented in draft form for all participants in the last session of the workshop.
POST VALIDATION PHASE (WORKSHOP SUMMARY SENT TO PARTICIPANTS FOR VERIFICATION)
The post validation phase gave all participants the opportunity to review the peer review summary outcomes following the workshop. Following the peer-review discussions at the workshop and reflections on self-review data, participants were invited to alter their ratings, supporting statements and add any additional evidence.
REPORTING PHASE INCLUDING WORKSHOP OUTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Workshop participants were invited to review and comment on a draft final report. Participants were provided with the report and their institution’s self-review report (results from the online tool) and encouraged to consider the recommendations and determine an implementation plan for their institution.
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 9
3. ResultsThe results from the benchmarking project were validated by participants in the peer review workshop [some changes were made to ratings at this stage] and also later validated by email by workshop participants.
A summary of each KPI is presented below. Appendix F provides full detail of the KPIs and an anonymised summary of the self-assessment ratings for illustrative purposes. Participating institutions have all received a validated detailed summary of peer review workshop outcomes.
3.1KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1: STRATEGIES TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION OF PRIORITY LEARNERS
There were three agreed performance measures under KPI#1: 1) Strategic planning for stakeholder needs; 2) Strategies to improve successful participation of priority learners; 3) Collaboration with Tertiary Education Organisations (TEOs) and other Networks.
Participating universities were: The Arts Univeristy Bournemouth (AUB), Auckland University of Technology (AUT), Lincoln University (LU) and Victoria University (VU).
Table 2. KPI#1 Areas of Good Practice
• Strategic Plans and policies are focussed on priority learners, equity and access
• University marketing and dissemination of information on support programs and course offerings crucial to development of relationships with principals, parents and prospective students
• Strategic Plans are evaluated on a regular basis and reported to university governance committees.
• Very strong focus on employability and careers. Excellent outcomes in the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey
• AUB takes a long term, whole of institution approach to widening access with various strategies [Access Agreement for UK and non-UK EU students, Fair Access Agreement Management Group]
• AUB runs a Foundation Diploma in Art and Design which is a preparatory qualification for post A-level students that have not identified their specific area of expertise or interest.
• AUT has practices and initiatives in place to support the transition of Màori and Pacific students into higher education: School Partnership Programme; Mentoring Programme; pilot on the South Campus targeting Pacific students; transition programme with Counties Manukau District Health Board [AUT] with more teaching hours but students are funded the same way
• AUT has multiple approaches to widening access for priority learners. It has a long history of enabling pathways for students who have completed qualifications with other HEIs as well as internal staircasing towards higher qualifications
• AUT offers a number of resources and networks to improve participation; e.g. iMAPS, Pasific Learning Villages; student academic support; financial advice and assistance; student mentors.
All
AUB
AUT
10 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
• Career guidance is built into initiatives for Màori and Pasifika students.
• Whole university is built on the platform of equity and diversity (2014 Equity and Diversity for Staff Policy, the 2015 Student equity and Social Inclusion Policy, the 2015 Social Inclusion Access Participation and Success Plan; The Indigenous Strategy, Disability Action Plan)
• University of Opportunity
• Alternative entry program Portfolio Partnerships Programme and Achievement Scholarships are available
• The University has a range of strategies in place to improve successful participation of students from different backgrounds such as the VU Agenda and Blueprint for Curriculum Reform; Social Inclusion Access Participation and Success Plan 2015-2017; Indigenous Strategy 2012-2016; Victoria University Disability Action Plan 2011-2015; Student Participation and Success Framework 2014-2016. The University also has a number of initiatives (Portfolio Partnership Program and a number of Commonwealth Government HEPPP funded programs). The University has a strong history of pathways between VET and HE as well as between HE courses
• To create a pathway into a professional degree, we create twin programmes, where the twin is taught with greater support and longer hours. The equity issue is dealt with in that a student can choose to do either. Students with greater need are funnelled into the twin programme but other students are given the choice.
• VU has a range of mentoring and outreach programs, including Orientation Programme, First Year Experience programme and Student Link Programme
• Diploma programs provide additional paths between degree programs. HE diplomas mirror the first year of the degree, but may be taught with greater support and longer hours
• VU is currently reviewing its pathways strategy to ensure all pathways are streamlined and there is sufficient capacity for formal pathway activities.
VU
LU
11 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
• The university is currently developing an alumni plan
• Current Equalities Strategy is concluding with new plan in preparation. No data to support equity and diversity
• AUB provides support to school students but it is not as coordinated or as strategic as it could be
• Some students’ progress from the Preparation for Higher Education Programmes but it is hard to identify success of this
• Some work with other providers of art and design as part of the National Arts Learning Network but this is about sharing practice rather than advice to students.
• The university has always had a dedicated career centre with staff assisting Màori and Pacific students. More recently the focus is moving towards student and graduate employability rather than primarily career counselling and this is still to be embedded. We do a lot of this at local programme and faculty level and this is often not explicitly recognised
• The Diversity Strategy and Action Plan includes strategies for successful participation of priority learners but there is no specific mention of under 25’s without academic preparation. This no longer seems to be such a focus for TEC as well.
• Pacific Strategy Plan is yet to be completed and MAPAS and Te Awhioraki class representative-MAPAS to be re-established
• A full career development and employment service is run by a dedicated careers advisory person and provided to all students and recent graduates. However there are no specific provisions for Màori or Pasifika students
• We have a Màori and Pasifika Committee that has set protocols for Màori responsiveness and this has to do with the employment process. There are certain statements in there, but we haven’t yet seen them in action
• No equity or diversity plan but lots of policies and processes
• Poutama Strategy Pathways to enhance regional delivery of programmes to support Màori students is variable
• When we look at the strategy, there still needs to be something in the form of information to professional and academic staff when dealing with Màori students, and also to discuss with staff the Màori responsiveness matrix, to incorporate values to help improve where we are with Màori students
• Some initiatives in place for mentoring and outreach programmes: Powhiri, Mihi Whakatau; Noho Marae and Whenua Kura Programmes. Nothing at this stage for domestic Pasifika students: waiting for Pacific Strategy
• The Whenua Kura Programme has a framework but it is not used for movement between institutions.
AUB
AUT
LU
Table 3. KPI#1 Areas for Improvement and/or Further Development
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education12
• The University Indigenous Strategy aims to widen participation by the indigenous population
• There is scope for exploring a more comprehensive approach to pathways as part of a College structure, including development of further partnerships.
VU
3.2KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2: PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR TEACHING STAFF
There was one performance measure under KPI#2: Professional academic support and teaching qualifications.
Participating universities were: Lincoln University (LU), Swinburne University of Technology (Swin) and Victoria University (VU).
Table 4. KPI#2 Areas of Good Practice
• Extensive professional development opportunities in the Learning Transformations area (blended/online is a major focus)
• Learning Transformations are the University’s central provider of professional development for academic staff, including e-moderation; design courses for online environment; resources for online learning and trialling peer review of assessment where teaching staff mentor the staff of underperforming units.
• VU offers a range of programs for academics to improve their teaching practice: Induction to Teaching Program, Graduate Certificate in Tertiary Education and ongoing professional development activities. Support is also provided from the centre in course design, pedagogy and blended learning with limited resourcing
• Moondani Balik, Indigenous Centre further supports indigenous staff and students. Recently introduced Indigenous cultural awareness online training program called Yulendji Wurrung
• Dedicated support to teaching staff via participation in the First Year Experience Program, mentoring by FYE coordinators and professional development activities
• Academic Development and Support provide resources and guidance to staff on diverse student cohorts.
Swin
VU
• General induction for new staff, report back to staff through evaluation system, some responsibility for ensuring good teaching practice. Exploring potential for embedded Màori curricula
• Staff development is a work in progress. The Responsiveness Matrix Framework needs to be activated through training.
LU
Table 5. KPI#2 Areas for Improvement and/or Further Development
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 13
3.3KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 3: TEACHING QUALITY
There were 5 performance measures under KPI#3: 1) Appropriate strategic and operational planning documents and policies; 2) Supporting academics to enhance teaching quality; 3) Adequate financial resources to monitor and support teaching quality; 4) Evaluation of teaching quality; and 5) Recovery plans and procedures to facilitate continuity of teaching and learning.
Participating universities were: Brimingham City University (BCU), Swinburne University of Technology (Swin), University of Tasmania (UTAS) and Victoria University (VU) .
Table 6. KPI#3 Areas of Good Practice
• Universities have appropriate strategies, plans and policies in place for student achievement, academic standards and teaching quality
• Universities have in place internal teaching awards and they align to national awards/reconition
• Vast majority of Resources to support online teaching are in place [VU, Swin, UTAS]
• Universities have in place internal surveys to evaluate teaching [VU, Swin, BCU and UTAS]
• Universities have in place external surveys to monitor teaching quality [BCU, UTAS, Swin, VU]
• Universities have a sharpened interest in performance monitoring through instruments such as the annual and comprehensive course reviews.
• Deliberate decision to reduce strategic documents: target indicators and secondary indicators. Used to have a Teaching and Learning Strategy and now a L&T Manifesto (short document) for students and staff. The L&T Manifesto statements talk to students and the language will have buy in.
• BCU received a 72% response rate on the National Student Survey (NSS). They have people calling students and monitoring responses across all courses. They have national targets
• BCU has recently gone through a restructure of academic job descriptions. There are now only 7 academic job descriptions which are fully aligned to the different levels of HEA fellowship
• There is a target that all fulltime staff involved in learning and teaching be HEA accredited by 2020 (80% by 2017).
• Swinburne changed their internal surveys to be much shorter: Check in (or pulse) survey which is formative with only three questions and the end of semester survey has 3 questions for the unit and 4 questions for teaching. They had a 43% response rate which is reasonably high for an Australian university
• Swinburne has a Business Continuity Service for their Learning Management System.
• Comprehensive framework of teaching expectations, which now includes rubrics and will be available online
• UTAS has a Blended Learning Model to underpin delivery of Technology Enhanced Learning and Teaching which is outlined in the TELT White Paper
• Information Technology Services has a disaster recovery plan for IT infrastructure; there are also business continuity plans. For e.g. TILT has BCP for the Learning Management System.
All
BCU
Swin
UTAS
14 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
• The University has a suite of strategic and operational plans. Quality and Standards and policy is in development
• VU has mobility plans in place to enhance teaching quality: Overseas and visiting teachers; Offshore teaching programs; Exchange/MOA Real Madrid; Special Study Program. The University is systematically expanding the international experience of staff and recently revised the Special Study Program policy to allow more frequent opportunities for international experience
• VU has developed a university-level peer review of teaching process in the early stages of development and take up. It is currently enbedded in the Graduate Certificate in Tertiary Education.
VU
Table 7. KPI#3 Areas for Improvement and/or Further Development
• Reduce number of strategies and plans
• Universities have a number of policies that support teaching quality, however, many are being reviewed and redeveloped
• Challenges in obtaining data on the qualifications of academic staff [from HR], including sessional staff
• More work could be undertaken in increasing staff participation in mobility programs and staff exchanges.
• BCU is in the process of reorganising schools and faculties which has had an impact on existing planning and policy documentation [sometimes three versions]. There is not much resistance to the centralisation of planning as people recognise the need for more consistency
• Support for staff with poor quality teaching is a work in progress
• Opportunities with the Erasmus scheme are open to all staff, but uptake is relatively low but is increasing –in 2014/2015, 29 were for teaching mobility and 8 for training. A Task and Finish group has recently been set up to look at ways to increase the uptake of the Erasmus scheme
• BCU has an ad hoc process for blended online learning and needs to develop a strategy. At the moment, resources are going into providing tools.
• Swinburne are about to commence some data modelling to identify unit metrics that can be used as lead indicators of course quality e.g. which units predict external student satisfaction. They are fine tuning the use of a BI tool, to provide data on a real time basis to Unit Convenors
• Swinburne are in the process of clarifying teaching expectations as part of a review of workload models.
• Some significant documents in learning and teaching are very hard to track in terms of use [e.g. LTAS@UTAS and UTAS Assessment Standards]
• UTAS is in the process of using data from their LMS to identify which students have engaged in their L&T sessions
• UTAS will do a mapping exercise with all teaching and learning policies to identify gaps
• We offer workshops and drop in sessions for sessional staff, but numbers are low
• There is a need to consolidate and complete work on policy renewal
• Further work on ensuring consistent processes across moderation and benchmarking activities would be beneficial as would development of resources to support staff and increasing partnerships in this area
All
BCU
VU
Swin
UTAS
15 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
3.4KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 4: CURRICULUM QUALITY
The performance measure under KPI#4 was curriculum approval, development and review.
Participating universities were: The Arts University Bournemouth (AUB), Birmingham City University (BCU) and Lincoln University (LU).
Table 8. KPI#4 Areas of Good Practice
• AUB uses the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA’s), Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) to set out the national reference points for course approval [known as validation and review]. An internal panel validates each programme that is developed and each programme is reviewed every five years
• The peer observation process encourages the sharing of practice and discussions on pedagogy. The dissemination of good practice by QAA is a useful catalyst
• Many committees are replaced by a Task and Finish Group, identify what is your task, this is what you have to implement, and then the task is finished, you write a report. This is most effective.
• LU have annual reviews of programmes and courses. When a new course is being developed the rationale for why it is needed has to be provided, showing how it fits within the programme and meets industry needs. Once it has gone to an internal committee, it goes the Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP) for approval.
• LU has a very strong link with its local Màori community/industry. Programmes are strongly linked to industry
• Teaching teams, collegiality and teaching excellence awards including for team teaching
• The Academic Policy Refresh Project is in the process of reviewing all academic policies at Lincoln and Telford
• Open access to teaching material.
AUB
LU
Table 9. KPI#4 Areas for Improvement and/or Further Development
• Benchmarking is done at the programme level but there is a question mark how effectively it is used.
• BCU asks people to map the benchmarks but people tend to use them more as a tick-box exercise to say they have looked at them. Benchmark statements are not consistently used in practice
• The outcomes of the Annual Review process is impacted by the stage of maturity of programmes. Needs the commitment of Senior Management to ensure that staff are given the time to devote to the activity. Strengthen the function of CELT as a collegial support for curriculum development and review.
• Address the challenge of incorporating the whenua strategy into Lincoln’s programmes.
AUB
BCU
LU
• Sessional staff support is strong in the area of formal L&T development, but gaps and opportunities for more general support should be explored.
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education16
3.5KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 5: PEER REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT
The performance measure under KPI#5 was peer review of assessment.
Participating universities were: The Arts University Bournemouth (AUB), Auckland University of Technology (AUT) and Victoria University (VU). Note that the focus for benchmarking comments was for specific programmes as reflected in the comments below.
Table 10. KPI#5 Areas of Good Practice
• Assessment data is kept in a secure database with processes in place for exam boards.
• Examiners from other institutions are appointed at least once year to attend an exam board and look at samples of work. It usually occurs over three years. For AUB, there are examiners for ARB and RIBA (Architecture). Many courses are accredited by Creative Skillset and have to submit work to support accreditation.
• AUT has a range of peer review moderation processes in place:
» International Tourism internal pre-moderation and post moderation of assessment; a regular cycle of external moderation by an external academic from another university;
» Paramedicine has moderation policy which includes pre-moderation/assessment committee. Process includes pre-marking, mid-marking, cross marking and post marking; External moderation is carried out by industry Medical Consultants, Intensive Care Paramedics and Paramedics. The CAA accreditation process also involved external academics reviewing assessment.
» Visual Arts includes capstone assessment and pre-moderation which are studio briefs, in third year students write their own project brief; studio work is marked by a team of staff; an external review
» Digital Design has capstone assessment, pre-moderation with student briefs and each studio paper is assessed by a team of staff and pre-moderated by the Head of Department and/or Programme Leader
» In both Art and Design majors the final exhibition of student work involves sharing of student assessment outputs with the art and design community. This is an important informal form of peer review.
• Peer review of assessment occurs in the disciplines, international activities are underway in paramedics and business
• The professional accreditation of paramedics includes a national set of documents, although there is no formal requirement for peer review of assessment
• The University utilises external moderation and benchmarking processes for all courses as part of the Comprehensive Course Review (every five years). Professional accredited courses require additional external benchmarking and review processes. e.g. Bachelor of Business uses an internal review of the accounting major with other universities in Australia.
All
AUB
AUT
VUVU
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 17
VU
Table 11. KPI#5 Areas for Improvement and/or Further Development
• While there is external moderation involving the professional community, it is hoped that this project will lead to wider international relationships.
• External examiners are appointed to all course leading to an award of the University. Current national discussions suggest that external examining may be strengthened. Examiners in Architecture are approved by the accrediting body and have to confirm that work meets the national standard for these awards
• Not all subject areas have a professional accrediting body. Paramedicine does not have a NZ body but has been accredited by The Council of Ambulance authorities (CAA) an Australasian accrediting body.
• There are no professional accrediting body for international tourism in NZ, accreditation is available through the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO). AUT are considering this. Art and Design programmes do not have professional (employer) accrediting bodies as is expected given the nature of these programmes.
• The benchmarking of learning standards and assessment standards is an ongoing process. Visual Arts and Digital design The assessment expectations were reviewed by an external academic as part of a cyclic review process. External Industry Rep (WETA) meets with final year students and talk to them about their work providing individual student feedback and provides staff with feedback but this process is not formally documented. The area for further development is to set up reciprocal arrangements. The Paramedic and Tourism courses are currently taking part in a pilot in the international benchmarking project with VU. Visual Arts and Digital Design are looking to this with AUB.
• The Paramedic and Tourism courses are currently taking part in a pilot in the international benchmarking project with AUT. This activity will be then rolled out across courses with national and international partners as part of our Comprehensive Course Review process
All
AUB
AUT
18 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
• To inform University Plans we rely heavily on analysis of internal and external data. The biggest challenge is that data from some sources may not be available for 3 years
• Partnerships with schools are an important part of assisting students’ transition into university
• Focus on blended learning in professional development
• Very difficult to get consistency in approach in strategic and operational plans. The challenge is when you have multiple plans over areas. Quite often there is overlap and disconnect with plans
• Access to teaching surveys for quality assurance purposes is a challenge
• Having externality on programmes is essential for credibility and validation.
4. Key similarities and differences across three countries
The peer review workshop identified some key similarities across three countries outlined in Table 12 below.
Table 12. Key Similarities across three countries
19 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
• Language in national policies on equity and access is slightly different: Australia and UK focus on social inclusion for different cohorts, NZ focus on priority learners (Màori, Pacifica, under 25’s) and recognising diversity
• Core professional development programs for academic staff [optional vs mandatory]
• Language around courses/programmes/papers/subject/unit/modules
• Funding for teaching quality varies across universities [varies between $70K a year to $3M].
Some key differences that were identified across three countries are outlined in Table 13 below.
Table 13. Key differences across three countries
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education20
5. Areas for sharing
During the peer review workshop the following areas were identified for sharing:
• Booklet for sharing for UK PSF [BCU]
• We have writing days, twice a year for UK PSF [invitation to attend] [BCU]
• National teaching standards: Australia and NZ are extending the discussion with the UK
• Teaching Expectations Framework and Rubrics [UTAS]
• Swinburne Student Charter
• UTAS has a Blended Learning Model to underpin delivery of Technology Enhanced Learning and Teaching which is outlined in the TELT White Paper.
• Shareville: online town and simulations [BCU]
• QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications as a reference point for course approval. The FHEQ includes expectations of a graduate at each level of the Framework and benchmark statements for curriculum areas. QA Handbook [AUB]
• CUAP are on approval, development and review a form of benchmarking that occurs in New Zealand [AUT and LU]
• BCU has developed a “Rough Guide to Curriculum Development”.
6. Key recommendations for institutions resulting from the benchmarking process
The key recommendations have been self-identified by each university and are proposed as a result of the evidence collected and subsequent discussions in the benchmarking process. They relate directly to the KPIs that each institution chose to do. These recommendations are, of course, open for discussion and change by each of the respective universities.
Table 14. The Arts University Bournemouth (AUB) Recommendations
Recommendation 1 Consideration is given to the Plan that replaces the current Equalities Plan to
include key data measures that track equity and diversity
Recommendation 2 Develop a coordinated strategy for supporting school students to university
Recommendation 3 Work with the National Arts Learning Network to support students coming
into AUB
Recommendation 4 Develop process to track benchmarking data [including benchmark
statements] across the University for quality assurance purposes
Recommendation 5 Develop process to track benchmarking data [including benchmark
statements] across the University for quality assurance purposes
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 21
Recommendation 1 Formally recognise the career advice role provided at the faculty/academic level
Recommendation 2 Clarify whether students in the under 25’s without academic preparation
programmes are still a target priority group
Recommendation 3 Consider professional accreditation for International Tourism
Recommendation 4 Widen and broaden external peer review of assessment internationally
Recommendation 1 Continue process of reorganising schools and faculties, but ensure that there is
centralisation of existing policies and planning
Recommendation 2 Provide support for academic staff with poor quality teaching
Recommendation 3
Recommendation 4
Recommendation 5 Provide professional development to staff on external peer review of
assessment
Recommendation 6 Strengthen the function of CELT as a collegial support for curriculum
development and review
Table 15. Auckland University of Technology (AUT) Recommendations
Table 16. Birmingham City University (BCU) Recommendations
Increase opportunities for staff mobility with Erasmus
Develop institutional strategy for blended online learning
22 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Recommendation 1 Progress the completion of the Pacific Strategy Plan and re-establish MAPAS
and Te Awhioraki class representatives
Recommendation 2 Develop strategies to support Màori and Pasifika students in career development
Recommendation 3 Progress the development of statements in protocols for Màori responsiveness
Recommendation 4 Review Poutama Strategy to ensure consistency of delivery of programmes to
support Màori students
Recommendation 5 Disseminate the Màori responsiveness matrix with staff
Recommendation 6 Improve induction and professional development of staff in teaching quality
Recommendation 1 Progress tracking of data analytics in the Learning Management System to
identify just in time data for student progression and success
Recommendation 2 Undertake mapping of all teaching and learning policies to identify gaps in
teaching quality
Recommendation 3 Identify strategies to increase sessional staff numbers in professional
development sessions
Recommendation 4 More work to be undertaken in increasing staff participation in mobility programs
and staff exchanges
Recommendation 1 Progress data modelling to identify unit metrics which can be used as lead
indicators of course quality
Recommendation 2 Progress clarification of teaching expectations as part of the review of workloads
Recommendation 3 More work to be undertaken in increasing staff participation in mobility programs
and staff exchanges
Table 17. Lincoln University Recommendations
Table 19. The University of Tasmania Recommendations
Table 18. Swinburne University Recommendations
23 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Recommendation 1 Progress tracking of data analytics in the Learning Management System to
identify just in time data for student progression and success
Recommendation 2 Develop more comprehensive approach to pathways, including further development
of foundations and HE diploma programs that provide clear entry points
Recommendation 3 Develop consistent approaches and resources for staff across moderation
and benchmarking activities
Recommendation 4 Identify strategies to improve support for sessional staff and to engage them
in early professional development
Table 20. Victoria University Recommendations
7. Project evaluationFeedback on the benchmarking project was collected through feedback at the peer review workshop and also through an online survey if they wished to provide further reflection (two universities did). Project participants provided the following evaluation of the project and peer review workshop:
Value of the process
• Very useful exercise, particularly the information gathering in the self-review phase.
• Important to come away from institution in one place to have these discussions. Size of group was quite nice, not too big. A number of things I will take away.
• Nice to know there are more similarities than differences. Alive and useful. Had made a lot of lists.
• Really enjoyed it. Thanks for organisation, one of the best organised events I have been to for a long time. Very useful when you are an external examiner and you learn more when you give.
• Every minute has been worthwhile. Have written lots of notes. I am passionate about benchmarking, we know we don’t do it well and I am excited about it.
• I think the process of seeing how the information comes together and then meeting has been really useful. Really well organised.
• Very useful and it has been about broadening our outlook. Hope to be able to influence decision makers and go down the path of improvements that we have identified.
• Benchmarking methodology has huge potential. APN network did a project a few years ago and we never got to evaluate. Methodology has lots of applications.
• It was very valuable. TEQSA was set up as an arm’s length model, it is important for us to get out there and hear the collegial discussion. Devil is in the follow up, we will be looking to see if collegial discussions took place and were followed up by actions.
• Having two days to talk about excellence in teaching in such depth with such openness was an inspiration. For me, when I think of the last few days: all the hallmarks that OLT aspires to. I did have a deep belief that collaboration, particularly across institutions and internationally, is what builds innovation and leadership for innovation and I saw all that here today.
• Meeting and discussing with people face-to-face. The opportunity for collegial discussions on emerging areas of good practice.
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education24
Areas for consideration where the process might be improved
• Some challenges in terms of benchmarking tool and questions being repeated
• One thing that I would do differently, is to have a discussion on ratings. I would suggest that these be left blank (others felt the initial grade was important as a starting point for discussion).
• One suggestion I would make for future exercises would be to consider having a more reflective analysis upfront, drawing out the major themes of good practice and major needs for improvement in aggregate, i.e. not
necessarily broken down by provider. This would help see the wood for the trees, so to speak.
• Perhaps less items and more time to discuss. Each discussion to conclude with a re-appraisal of the ‘grade’ given.
• In the outcomes table, the format could distinguish under each criteria between the framework of policies, procedures and practices in place on the one hand, and the effectiveness of the framework in practice on the other. These could be separate sub-sections in each phase.
8. ConclusionsThis international benchmarking project was a ‘proof of concept’ that was trialled with 7 universities across Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Interestingly, the key findings across the HE institutions and three countries identified:
• Many similar challenges across HE irrespective of national constituency. These include: time lag in survey data; inconsistency in approach in strategic and operational plans; accessing teaching surveys for quality assurance processes; and funding for teaching quality;
• Similar strengths/and or agreement on priorities across HE: partnerships with schools; importance of blended learning; and the externality of programmes is essential for creditability and validation.
At the end of the two day workshop the aims of the project were achieved. Participants clearly valued the process and each had areas of good practice affirmed and recommendations for internal action noted.
A particularly useful part of the discussion, in our view, was unpacking some of the differences in terminology used by different countries. For instance, current policy and practice in
New Zealand refers to acknowledging and accommodating learner diversity and sets explicit priorities, while in the United Kingdom and Australia similar issues of supporting disadvantaged learners are addressed in the language of “inclusivity”. There was particular interest too in the United Kingdom’s Professional Standards Framework for teachers in higher education.
While generally highly favourable, the evaluation suggested that this exercise was possibly too ambitious in the range of topics covered in one exercise and that there may have been additional value to be gained in exploring fewer topics in more depth. In particular, this may have allowed better unpacking of the links between national and institutional policies and the effectiveness of the implementation of those institutional policies.
The value of initial self-rating was also discussed, with a general view that this was an important first step in helping focus self-review and following peer review discussion, but here may have been value in a more formal process of re-appraisal of self-ratings once each part of the peer review discussion was completed. Again time constraints prevented this in this instance.
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 25
Essentially, the methodology provides a structured and cost-effective framework for purposeful self-evaluation and then validation of that self-evaluation through discussion with external peers. While it is important to structure the questions with some care, it is not necessary to develop them with undue precision. It is inevitable they will be interpreted differently in different institutional contexts and, as some participants pointed out in this instance, may risk becoming repetitive. On the other-hand, they should be viewed – and proved to be – very much as starting points for progressive discussion.
Initially too, we had some concern that very different institutional contexts might prompt some discussants to talk past each other. Having gone to some lengths to provide a high level overview of the demographics and mission of each university, so that each participating university had a broad understanding of key drivers and context for the others, this proved not to be the case.
9. References
ACODE. (2014). The Australasian Council on Open, Distance and e-learning. Benchmarks for e-Learning in Universities and Guidelines for Use. Retrieved 27 May, 2015, from http://www.acode.edu.au/pluginfile.php/579/mod_resource/content/3/TEL_Benchmarks.pdf
Booth, S., Melano, A., Sainsbury, H., & Woodley, L. (2011) ‘Articulating and comparing standards through benchmarking of assessment’, Proceedings of the Australian Quality Forum 2011, 29 June – 1 July 2011, Melbourne, pp. 38-47.
Jackson, N. & Lund, H. (eds.) (2000) Benchmarking for higher education. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, United Kingdom.
Our conclusion is that this is a methodology that has value both for national benchmarking exercises and international ones. It does, however, rely on considerable levels of mutual trust and a genuine enthusiasm for and open-mindedness about how best to serve our students in the future. We thank all our participants for being so ready to share their practice and ideas so openly. We thank their institutions for allowing them to do so.
Possible areas for future collaboration across Australia, New Zealand and the UK universities include: benchmarking employability processes and data; student experience surveys and processes; and peer review of assessment.
Stella, A., & Woodhouse, D. (2007). Benchmarking in Australian higher education: A thematic analysis of AUQA audit reports: Citeseer.
Tertiary Education Strategy (2014-2019). Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. New Zealand Government, Wellington. Retrieved 05 August, 2015, from http://www.education.govt.nz/further-education/policies-and-strategies/tertiary-education-strategy/
26 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Appendix A: List of participants
Dr Peter Coolbear, Ako AotearoaDr Ineke Kranenburg, Auckland University of Technology (AUT)
Daniela Theodorou, Ako AotearoaLinda O’Neill, Auckland University of Technology (AUT)
Rhonda Thomson, Ako AotearoaChristine Ma’auga, Lincoln University, Christchurch (LU)
Michael Tomlinson, Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA), Melbourne, Australia
Jo Frew, Lincoln University, Christchurch (LU)
Heather Kirkwood, The Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities (AQA), Wellington
Jenny Eland, Birmingham City University (BCU)
Dr Jan Cameron, Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities (AQA), Wellington
Dr Graham Lowe, Head of Learning and Teaching Practice (CELT), Birmingham City University (BCU)
Di Weddell, Branch Manager Office for Learning and Teaching (OLT), Australia
Wayne Jencke, Swinburne University of Technology
Donna Bell, Higher Education ConsultantAssoc Prof Natalie Brown, University of Tasmania (UTAS)
Dr Sara Booth, University of Tasmania (UTAS)
Assoc Prof Nicolette Lee, Victoria University, Melbourne (VU)
Susan Young, Victoria University, Melbourne (VU)
Jon Renyard, The Arts University Bournemouth (AUB) [sent through valuation, but unable to attend in person]
Organisation Representatives University Representatives
27 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Appendix B: Institutional strategic statements
Auckland University of Technology (AUT): The Vice Chancellor’s priorities for 2013 reflect the five themes in the 2012-2016 Strategic plan; http://www.news.aut.ac.nz/publications/strategic-plan
1. Learning and teaching – increasing student success rates for all groups of students at all levels of study
2. Research and scholarship – advancing knowledge and stimulating learning
3. Staff – being a workplace that is great for all staff by supporting achievement, involvement and development
4. Engagement with communities – Business, industry, professions and employers through knowledge exchange, staff opportunities and research and development
5. Continuous development and capacity building – contributing to environmental sustainability through research, innovation and the practices and operations as a large organisation
AUT is a university for the changing world, an increasingly powerful force for learning and discovery. A contemporary, connected and relevant study destination, it has differentiated itself through its commitment to widening university access and participation, and its engagement with business, industry and communities.
Lincoln University (LU) From the Lincoln University Strategic Plan (2014-2018) accessed at http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/Documents/Marketing/Publications/LincolnUniversity%20Strategic%20Plan%202014-2018.pdf outlines;
Mission: Deliver a great whole-of-university experience for students, clients and staff.
Vision: A specialist land-based university that’s a great place to learn, discover and share.
Objectives:
• Vibrant, successful student experience and highly-employable, entrepreneurial graduates,
• who will embrace life-long learning and continuing professional development
• High engagement with clients
• Energetic, high-performing, well-rewarded staff
• Innovative and responsive curriculum
• Creative, productive, high-yielding research that informs policy and practice
• Modern equipment and facilities
• Culture that engenders quality
• Achieve surplus with annual growth in revenue of 5%.
Strap line: Feed the world, protect the future, live well
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education28
Birmingham City University (BCU) Birmingham City University Strategic Plan (2020) accessed at http://www.bcu.ac.uk/about-us/corporate-information includes;
Vision
• To be recognised as the leading University for creative and professional practice-based education in UK
• To have highly employable graduates with knowledge, attributes and practice skills to successfully progress in their lives and careers
• Through applied research and knowledge exchange create advantage for students, organisations, our city and region, and for wider society
• To be recognised as the sector leader in student engagement
• To be the University FOR Birmingham and with a global reach
• To continue to be an employer of choice and attract innovative and enterprising staff
Mission: To transform the prospects of individuals, organisations and society through excellence in practice-based education, research and knowledge exchange.
The Arts University Bournemouth Arts University Bournemouth Strategic Plan 2014-2019 accessed at; http://webdocs.aucb.ac.uk/Strategic%20Plan.pdf
Mission: To be the leading professional arts university dedicated to turning creativity into careers.
Vision: Within five years to be distinctive for our maker culture and leadership in creative learning.
Values: Innovative, Collaborative and Connected.
The Arts University Bournemouth is a specialist provider of high quality teaching, learning and scholarship in arts, design, media and performance. Students develop professional capabilities which are aligned to the creative industries and the university achieves high rates of progression by graduates to employment.
This strategic plan maps the aims of the university, the factors which support and enable their achievement.
Our values, identity and shared sense of purpose will ensure that AUB is capable of exploiting future opportunities and remains a destination of choice for students and staff. It will be recognised internationally as a professional arts university.
AUB has an Equalities Strategy accessed at; http://aub.ac.uk/about-us/legal-governance/equalities/
Swinburne University From the Swinburne University of Technology 2020 Plan accessed at; http://www.swinburne.edu.au/about/strategy-initiatives/2020-plan/
By 2020, Swinburne will be Australia’s leading university of science, technology and innovation.
To achieve this, we will:
• embrace a university-wide commitment to growth through excellence
• engage our students through quality, personalised education
• produce outstanding research that is relevant and internationally-recognised
• be the partner of choice for the industries and communities we serve.
Values: Innovation, Integrity, Accountability, Diversity, Teamwork, Sustainability.
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 29
University of Tasmania Open to Talent (2012 onward), accessed at http://www.utas.edu.au/vc/strategic-plan outlines;
UTAS Mission The University of Tasmania continues a long tradition of excellence and commitment to free inquiry in the creation, preservation, communication and application of knowledge, and to scholarship that is global in scope, distinctive in its specialisations and that reflects our Tasmanian character. The University will provide leadership within its community, thereby contributing to the cultural, economic and social development of Tasmania.
UTAS Vision The University of Tasmania will be ranked among the top echelon of research-led universities in Australia. The University will be a world leader in its specialist, thematic areas and will be recognised for its contribution to state, national and international development. UTAS will be characterised by its high-quality academic community, its unique island setting and its distinctive student experience. UTAS graduates will be prepared for life and careers in the globalised society of the twenty-first century.
UTAS Values We subscribe to the fundamental values of honesty, integrity, responsibility, trust and trustworthiness, respect and self-respect, and fairness and justice.
We bring these values to life by our individual and collective commitment to:
• Creating and serving shared purpose
• Nurturing a vital and sustainable community
• Focusing on opportunity
• Working from the strength diversity brings
• Collaborating In ways that helps us be the best we can be
Victoria University (VU) Strategic plan (updated April 2014) accessed on the VU website: http://www.vu.edu.au/about-us/vision-mission
Our vision is to be excellent, engaged and accessible. We aim to be internationally recognised for our leadership in:
• empowering our students to grow their capabilities and transform their lives
• engaging with industry and community to make the world a better place, through the creation, sharing and use of new knowledge.
We will achieve our goals through our distinctive approach to curriculum, the student experience, research and knowledge exchange, and engagement with industry and the community.
Mission: Through its distinctive approach to curriculum, the student experience, research and knowledge exchange, emphasising engagement with industry and the community, Victoria University will be renowned for:
• empowering students from diverse countries and cultures, socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, to be successful lifelong learners, grow their skills and capabilities for the changing world of work, and be confident, creative, ethical and respectful, local and global citizens;
• finding creative and evidence-based solutions to important contemporary challenges in Australia, Asia and globally, relating especially to education and lifelong learning, to health and active living, to the cultural diversity and well-being of communities, to economic development and environmental sustainability, and to the success of particular industries and places, especially our heartland of the West of Melbourne, Australia’s fastest growing region.
30 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Auc
klan
d U
nive
rsity
of
Tec
hnol
ogy
Linc
oln
Uni
vers
ity
Birm
ingh
am
City
Uni
vers
ityT
he A
rts
Uni
vers
ity
Bou
rnem
outh
Sw
inbu
rne
Uni
vers
ityU
nive
rsity
of
Tas
man
iaV
icto
ria
Uni
vers
ity
New
Zea
land
New
Zea
land
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Aus
tral
iaA
ustr
alia
Aus
tral
ia
55
42
3
(rat
iona
lised
fro
m 6
)
7 F
acul
ties
&
14 s
choo
ls7
Aca
dem
ic
Col
lege
s, V
U
Col
lege
s, V
U
Inst
itute
of T
ech,
13
Res
earc
h In
stitu
tes,
7 T
rans
natio
nal
educ
atio
n pa
rtner
s
Bus
ines
s an
d La
w,
Cul
ture
&
Soc
iety
,D
esig
n &
C
reat
ive
Tec
hnol
ogie
s,H
ealth
&
Env
ironm
enta
l S
cien
ces,
Te
Ara
P
outa
ma
Agr
ibus
ines
s &
Com
mer
ce,
Agr
icul
ture
&
Life
Sci
ence
s,
Env
ironm
ent,
Soc
iety
&
Des
ign,
U
nive
rsity
S
tudi
es
& E
nglis
h La
ngua
ge
Div
isio
n,
Linc
oln-
Tel
ford
D
ivis
ion
Art
s, D
esig
n &
M
edia
,H
ealth
, E
duca
tion
&
Life
Sci
ence
s,C
ompu
ting,
E
ngin
eerin
g an
d B
uilt
Env
ironm
ent,
Bus
ines
s,
Law
& S
ocia
l S
cien
ces
Fac
ulty
of
Art
, Des
ign
&
Arc
hite
ctur
e,
Fac
ulty
of
Med
ia &
P
erfo
rman
ce
Fac
ulty
of
Bus
ines
s &
La
w, F
acul
ty o
f H
ealth
, Art
s &
D
esig
n, F
acul
ty
of S
cien
ce
Eng
inee
ring
&
Tec
hnol
ogy
Art
s, A
MC
, E
duca
tion,
H
ealth
, IM
AS
, La
w, M
enzi
es,
Sci
ence
E
ngin
eerin
g &
T
echn
olog
y,
Tas
. Sch
ool
of B
usin
ess
&
Eco
nom
ics
Aca
dem
ic
Col
lege
s;A
rts,
Bus
ines
s,
Edu
catio
n,
Eng
inee
ring
& S
cien
ce,
Hea
lth &
Bio
-M
edic
ine,
Law
&
Jus
tice,
Spo
rt
& E
xerc
ise
Sci
ence
, VU
IT,
VU
Col
lege
27,6
886,
000
indi
vidu
al
stud
ents
3000
EF
TS
L
22,5
003,
300
400
pre-
degr
ee
foun
datio
n di
plom
a
35,1
26
onsh
ore
>60
00 o
nlin
e st
uden
ts
30,0
0025
,000
ba
chel
or
stud
ents
48,9
92
Co
untr
y
Inst
itutio
n
Appendix C: Institutional demographics
No
. F
acul
ties
Fac
ulty
ar
eas
No
. S
tud
ents
31 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
5000
(18
%)
23%
Stu
dent
s fr
om
80 c
ount
ries
10%
are
ov
erse
as47
16
enro
lmen
ts
at S
araw
ak
cam
pus
4500
(15
%)
5000
2204
O
ver
600
2440
330
2141
5900
23
00
Yes
Prio
rity
1.
Del
iver
ing
new
ski
lls fo
r In
dust
ry,
Prio
rity
2.
Boo
stin
g ac
hiev
emen
t of
Mào
ri an
d P
asifi
ka,
Prio
rity
5.
Stre
ngth
enin
g R
esea
rch-
Bas
ed
inst
itutio
ns,
Prio
rity
6.
Gro
win
g In
tern
atio
nal
linka
ges.
Yes
Prio
rity
3.
Boo
stin
g su
cces
s of
Mào
ri an
d P
asifi
ka
Yes
Uni
vers
ity
valu
es:
Incl
usiv
e ed
ucat
ion,
pr
ovid
ing
oppo
rtuni
ty
for t
hose
with
th
e ab
ilitie
s &
m
otiv
atio
ns to
be
nefit
and
to
trans
form
thei
r liv
es, p
artic
ular
ly
taki
ng a
pro
-ac
tive
appr
oach
to
rais
ing
aspi
ratio
ns
amon
g so
cial
ly
& e
cono
mic
ally
de
priv
ed
com
mun
ities
.
Not
exp
licit
in
Stra
tegi
c pl
an
itsel
f.
How
ever
, do
es h
ave
an
Equ
aliti
es P
lan
http
://au
b.ac
.uk/
abou
t-us/
lega
l-go
vern
ance
/eq
ualit
ies/
Yes
Our
Stu
dent
s:
Rea
chin
g m
ore
stud
ents
. O
ur R
esea
rch:
P
erso
nal
& S
ocie
tal
Wel
lbei
ng.
Yes
Our
Prio
ritie
sS
tude
nts
(S1,
S
4)C
omm
unity
(C1,
C
3)S
uppo
rting
&
Ena
blin
g O
pen
to T
alen
t (E
2)
Yes
2.2
Mis
sion
, 2.
3 V
alue
s-
Acc
ess,
2.4
B
ehav
iour
s,
4.1
The
U
nive
rsity
of
Opp
ortu
nity
, 5.
1 Le
arni
ng
& T
each
ing
and
Stu
dent
E
xper
ienc
e
No
. Sta
ff
No.
Inte
rnat
. S
tud
ents
/ (%
)
Str
ateg
ic
Pla
n in
clud
es
Pri
ori
ty
Lear
ners
/E
vid
ence
o
f co
nsid
er-
atio
n o
f p
rio
rity
le
arne
rs.
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education32
Appendix D: Glossary of terms
ACODE: Australasian Council on Open, Distance and e-Learning
AQA: Academic Quality Agency
AQF: Australian Qualifications Framework
AUB: The Arts University Bournemouth (United Kingdom)
AUT: Auckland University of Technology (New Zealand)
BCU: Birmingham City University (United Kingdom)
Course: unit, module (multiple required to gain degree or programme qualification).
eVALUate: Internal student evaluation system at the University of Tasmania
LU: Lincoln University (New Zealand)
OLT: Office for Learning and Teaching (Australia)
PD: Professional Development for teaching staff
Process benchmarking: A form of benchmarking that focuses on how results are achieved.
Programme: Overall program of study e.g. degree, course
PSF: Professional Standards framework
Swinburne: Swinburne University (Australia)
TEQSA: Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
Unit: Individual component of study
UTAS: University of Tasmania (Australia)
VU: Victoria University (Australia)
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 33
Appendix E: Priority learners benchmarking framework: Example
RATING[Four point scale]
Yes, Yes BUT, No BUT, No
RATIONALE[Use dot points to
identify practices that support this rating]
EVIDENCE[Provide name and
web reference, data sources]
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
PI#1: Strategies to increase successful participation of priority learners in tertiary education
The New Zealand Government has introduced the Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-2019 to assist tertiary education and its users (learners and businesses) towards a more productive and competitive New Zealand. Tertiary education encompasses all post-school learning, including higher education, applied and vocational training, and training in foundation skills. These learning opportunities occur in a range of settings, including workplaces, universities and polytechnics. It is recognised that all individuals from all backgrounds have the opportunity to realise their talents through tertiary education. Key features of increasing participation of priority learners in New Zealand include evidence of strategic planning; strategies to improve participation of priority learners and collaborative networks.
1.1 Strategic planning for stakeholder needs
Consider and address: a. How does the institution meet
stakeholder needs in the Strategic plan (prospective and enrolled learners, communities, employers and industry? e.g. Màori, iwi, Pasifika, Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, other)
b. How does the institution address career guidance and support for students in the Strategic Plan? e.g. initiatives that are in place to support priority learners.
c. Are the Equity and Diversity Plans in place to address the needs of a diverse learning community?
d. How often are these strategic plans and initiatives evaluated?
1.2 Strategies to improve successful participation of students
Consider and address:a. What Strategies are in place to
improve successful participation of students from different backgrounds and different learning experiences?
b. What information, support and advice are given to school students about their study choices, tertiary transition and benefits of moving to higher education?
c. What mentoring and outreach programmes are available to support them in their transition to higher education?
34 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Appendix F: Summary of quantitative responses (traffic light report)
Inst
itutio
nal R
esp
ons
esM
ean
Res
po
nse
fo
r ea
ch P
M
KE
Y1
No
2 N
o b
ut3
Yes
but
4 Y
esN
YR
– n
ot y
et ra
ted
1. S
trat
egie
s to
incr
ease
su
cces
sfu
l par
tici
pat
ion
of
pri
ori
ty le
arn
ers
in t
erti
ary
edu
cati
on
1.1
Str
ateg
ic
pla
nn
ing
fo
r st
akeh
old
er
nee
ds
a.
How
doe
s th
e in
stitu
tion
mee
t sta
keho
lder
nee
ds
in th
e S
trat
egic
pla
n (p
rosp
ectiv
e an
d en
rolle
d le
arne
rs, c
omm
uniti
es, e
mpl
oyer
s an
d in
dust
ry?
e.g.
Mào
ri, iw
i, P
asifi
ka, A
borig
inal
, Tor
res
Str
ait
Isla
nder
, oth
er)
43
44
3.75
b.
How
doe
s th
e in
stitu
tion
addr
ess
care
er g
uida
nce
and
supp
ort f
or s
tude
nts
in th
e S
trate
gic
Pla
n? e
.g. i
nitia
tives
th
at a
re in
pla
ce to
sup
port
prio
rity
lear
ners
.3
32
43
c.
Are
the
Equ
ity a
nd D
iver
sity
Pla
ns in
pla
ce to
add
ress
th
e ne
eds
of a
div
erse
lear
ning
com
mun
ity?
43
24
3.25
d.
How
ofte
n ar
e th
ese
stra
tegi
c pl
ans
and
initi
ativ
es
eval
uate
d?4
44
44
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e3.
753.
253
43.
5
1.2
Str
ateg
ies
to im
prov
e su
cces
sful
pa
rtic
ipat
ion
of
stud
ents
a.
Wha
t Stra
tegi
es a
re in
pla
ce to
impr
ove
succ
essf
ul
parti
cipa
tion
of s
tude
nts
from
diff
eren
t bac
kgro
unds
and
di
ffere
nt le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
es?
34
34
3.5
b.
Wha
t inf
orm
atio
n, s
uppo
rt an
d ad
vice
are
giv
en to
sc
hool
stu
dent
s ab
out t
heir
stud
y ch
oice
s, te
rtiar
y tra
nsiti
on a
nd b
enefi
ts o
f mov
ing
to h
ighe
r edu
catio
n?4
34
43.
75
c.
Wha
t men
torin
g an
d ou
treac
h pr
ogra
mm
es a
re
avai
labl
e to
sup
port
them
in th
eir t
rans
ition
to h
ighe
r ed
ucat
ion?
42
24
3
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e3.
673.
253
4
AB
CD
EF
GP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
res
35 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Inst
itutio
nal R
esp
ons
esM
ean
Res
po
nse
fo
r ea
ch P
M
KE
Y1
No
2 N
o b
ut3
Yes
but
4 Y
esN
YR
– n
ot y
et ra
ted
1.3
Co
llab
ora
tio
n
wit
h o
ther
p
artn
ers
and
n
etw
ork
s
a.
Wha
t col
labo
ratio
n is
und
erta
ken
with
par
tner
s to
ens
ure
ther
e is
an
over
all p
rovi
sion
of s
uppo
rt
whi
ch p
rovi
des
a ra
nge
of p
athw
ays
for
stud
ents
?3
33
43.
75
b.
Wha
t pat
hway
s ar
e av
aila
ble
for s
tude
nts
to a
cces
s an
d su
ccee
d in
hig
her l
evel
terti
ary
stud
y? (e
sp. p
riorit
y le
arne
rs e
.g. M
àori,
iwi,
Pas
ifika
, Abo
rigin
al, T
orre
s S
trait
Isla
nder
, oth
er)
43
44
3
c.
Wha
t oth
er re
sour
ces
and
netw
orks
are
use
d to
sup
port
st
uden
ts to
impr
ove
parti
cipa
tion
in h
ighe
r edu
catio
n?4
43
43.
25
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e3.
673.
333.
334
AB
CD
EF
GP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
res
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education36
Inst
itutio
nal R
esp
ons
esM
ean
Res
po
nse
fo
r ea
ch P
M
KE
Y1
No
2 N
o b
ut3
Yes
but
4 Y
esN
YR
– n
ot y
et ra
ted
2. P
rovi
din
g p
rofe
ssio
nal
su
pp
ort
fo
r te
ach
ing
sta
ff
2.1
Pro
fess
ion
al
acad
emic
su
pp
ort
an
d
teac
hin
g
qu
alifi
cati
on
s
a.
Wha
t pro
fess
iona
l aca
dem
ic s
uppo
rt is
pro
vide
d to
teac
hing
sta
ff to
impr
ove
stud
ent p
artic
ipat
ion
in
high
er e
duca
tion?
23
43.
75
b.
Wha
t pro
gram
mes
sup
port
acad
emic
s w
ith
unde
rsta
ndin
g cu
ltura
lly re
spon
sive
teac
hing
pra
ctic
es
and
othe
r stu
dent
com
mun
ities
?N
YR
34
3
c.
Wha
t pro
fess
iona
l pra
ctic
e pr
ogra
mm
es a
re p
rovi
ded
to a
cade
mic
s to
impr
ove
and
enha
nce
thei
r tea
chin
g qu
alifi
catio
ns?
323
43.
25
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e2.
53
43.
5
2.2
Targ
ets
& P
athw
ays
for
Pri
ority
Le
arne
rs (e
g.)
Teac
hing
Sta
ff
a.
How
man
y te
achi
ng s
taff
from
Prio
rity
Lear
ner
com
mun
ities
(eg.
Mào
ri, P
asifi
ka, A
borig
inal
, Tor
res
Stra
it Is
land
er, O
ther
) wor
k w
ithin
the
terti
ary
educ
atio
n or
gani
satio
n?
NY
R4
34
b.
Wha
t app
ropr
iate
targ
ets
are
in p
lace
to in
crea
se
the
num
ber p
riorit
y le
arne
r com
mun
ity te
achi
ng a
nd
rese
arch
sta
ff em
ploy
ed in
HE
?N
YR
34
4
c.
Wha
t pat
hway
s ar
e av
aila
ble
for p
riorit
y le
arne
r co
mm
unity
med
ium
teac
hers
?N
YR
22
4
d.
Wha
t rol
e do
es te
ache
r tr
aini
ng h
ave
in r
aisi
ng
part
icip
atio
n an
d ac
hiev
emen
t for
leve
ls o
f prio
rity
lear
ner
stud
ents
?N
YR
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e
AB
CD
EF
GP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
res
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 37
Inst
itutio
nal R
esp
ons
esM
ean
Res
po
nse
fo
r ea
ch P
M
KE
Y1
No
2 N
o b
ut3
Yes
but
4 Y
esN
YR
– n
ot y
et ra
ted
3. T
each
ing
Qu
alit
y
3.1
Ap
pro
pri
ate
stra
teg
ic a
nd
o
per
atio
nal
p
lan
nin
g
do
cum
ents
an
d p
olic
ies
a.
Wha
t are
the
stra
tegi
c pl
anni
ng d
ocum
ents
rel
ated
to
stu
dent
ach
ieve
men
t, ac
adem
ic s
tand
ards
and
te
achi
ng q
ualit
y?4
NY
R3
43.
67
b.
Wha
t are
the
oper
atio
nal p
lann
ing
docu
men
ts re
late
d to
stu
dent
ach
ieve
men
t, ac
adem
ic s
tand
ards
and
te
achi
ng q
ualit
y? (F
or e
.g. d
epar
tmen
t/fac
ulty
pla
nnin
g do
cum
ents
)
33
34
3.25
c.
Wha
t are
the
key
perfo
rman
ce in
dica
tors
for t
each
ing
qual
ity?
43
34
3.25
d.
Wha
t pol
icie
s ar
e in
pla
ce to
sup
port
teac
hing
qu
ality
?3
33
43.
25
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e2.
53
43.
5
3.2
Sup
port
ing
ac
adem
ics
to e
nhan
ce
teac
hing
qu
ality
a.
Wha
t pro
cess
es a
re in
pla
ce to
mon
itor t
he q
ualifi
catio
ns
of a
cade
mic
sta
ff?3
43
33
43.
25
b.
Wha
t uni
vers
ity p
roce
sses
sup
port
acad
emic
sta
ff in
te
achi
ng w
ith a
n ap
prop
riate
fram
ewor
k fo
r tea
chin
g ex
pect
atio
ns th
at a
lign
with
pro
mot
ions
, per
form
ance
m
anag
emen
t and
hum
an re
sour
ces
proc
esse
s?
43
43
43
3.5
c.
Wha
t pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t is
prov
ided
to a
cade
mic
st
aff t
o en
hanc
e te
achi
ng q
ualit
y?3
34
43.
5
d.
Wha
t pro
fess
iona
l dev
elop
men
t is
prov
ided
to
sess
iona
l sta
ff to
sup
port
them
in e
nhan
cing
thei
r te
achi
ng?
43
24
3.25
e.
How
is q
ualit
y te
achi
ng r
ewar
ded
and
reco
gnis
ed?
33
44
3.5
f. W
hat m
obili
ty p
lans
are
in p
lace
to e
nhan
ce
teac
hing
qua
lity
(For
e.g
. sta
ff ex
chan
ges
and
seco
ndm
ents
)?3
33
24
3
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e3.
333
3.17
3.83
AB
CD
EF
GP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
res
38 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Inst
itutio
nal R
esp
ons
esM
ean
Res
po
nse
fo
r ea
ch P
M
KE
Y1
No
2 N
o b
ut3
Yes
but
4 Y
esN
YR
– n
ot y
et ra
ted
3.3
Ad
equ
ate
fin
anci
al
reso
urc
es
to m
on
ito
r an
d s
up
po
rt
teac
hin
g
qu
alit
y
a.
Wha
t tar
gets
are
set
to m
onito
r te
achi
ng q
ualit
y (s
tude
nt: s
taff
ratio
)?3
33
1
b.
Wha
t fina
ncia
l res
ourc
es a
re p
ut a
side
to s
uppo
rt
prof
essi
onal
dev
elop
men
t, re
war
d an
d re
cogn
ition
of
staf
f? P
rovi
de e
xam
ples
of p
roje
cts.
43
44
3.75
c.
Wha
t res
ourc
es a
re p
ut in
pla
ce to
sup
port
onlin
e te
achi
ng?
33
33
3
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e3.
333
3.33
2.67
3.4
Eva
luat
ion
of
teac
hing
qu
ality
a.
Wha
t pro
cess
es a
re in
pla
ce to
eva
luat
e te
achi
ng?
(For
e.
g. s
tude
nt e
valu
atio
n, p
eer r
evie
w o
f tea
chin
g).
33
33
3
b.
Wha
t ext
erna
l sur
veys
are
und
erta
ken
to b
ench
mar
k te
achi
ng q
ualit
y w
ith o
ther
uni
vers
ities
?4
34
43.
75
c.
How
is th
is e
valu
atio
n da
ta u
sed
to im
prov
e te
achi
ng
qual
ity?
43
34
3.5
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e
AB
CD
EF
GP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
res
39 International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education
Inst
itutio
nal R
esp
ons
esM
ean
Res
po
nse
fo
r ea
ch P
M
KE
Y1
No
2 N
o b
ut3
Yes
but
4 Y
esN
YR
– n
ot y
et ra
ted
3.5
Rec
ove
ry
pla
ns
and
p
roce
du
res
to f
acili
tate
co
nti
nu
ity
of
teac
hin
g a
nd
le
arn
ing
.
a.
Wha
t rec
over
y pl
ans
and
proc
edur
es a
re in
pla
ce
to fa
cilit
ate
cont
inui
ty o
f tea
chin
g an
d le
arni
ng?
34
3.5
b.
Wha
t pro
cess
es a
re in
pla
ce fo
r spe
cific
infra
stru
ctur
e (IT
sys
tem
s go
ing
dow
n)?
34
3.5
c.
Wha
t pro
cess
es a
re in
pla
ce fo
r inf
rast
ruct
ure
failu
re
(ele
ctric
ity)?
NY
R4
4
d.
Wha
t dis
aste
r im
pact
pro
cess
es a
re in
pla
ce (
fire,
flo
odin
g, e
arth
quak
e)?
NY
R4
4
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e3
4
AB
CD
EF
GP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
res
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education40
Inst
itutio
nal R
esp
ons
esM
ean
Res
po
nse
fo
r ea
ch P
M
KE
Y1
No
2 N
o b
ut3
Yes
but
4 Y
esN
YR
– n
ot y
et ra
ted
4. C
urr
icu
lum
qu
alit
y
4.1
Cu
rric
ulu
m
app
rova
l, d
evel
op
men
t an
d r
evie
w.
a.
Wha
t qua
lity
proc
esse
s ar
e in
pla
ce to
sup
port
cu
rric
ulum
app
rova
l, de
velo
pmen
t and
rev
iew
?4
44
b.
Wha
t pol
icie
s an
d pr
oced
ures
are
in p
lace
to s
uppo
rt
acad
emic
s in
cur
ricul
um q
ualit
y?4
NY
R4
c.
How
ofte
n ar
e th
ese
proc
esse
s re
view
ed?
43
3.5
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e4
3.5
AB
CD
EF
GP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
res
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education 41
Inst
itutio
nal R
esp
ons
esM
ean
Res
po
nse
fo
r ea
ch P
M
KE
Y1
No
2 N
o b
ut3
Yes
but
4 Y
esN
YR
– n
ot y
et ra
ted
5. P
eer
revi
ew o
f as
sess
men
t
5.1
Pee
r re
view
of
asse
ssm
ent
a.
Wha
t ext
erna
l ben
chm
arki
ng a
nd p
eer
revi
ew
proc
esse
s ar
e in
pla
ce?
(For
e.g
. pro
fess
iona
l ac
cred
itatio
n). W
ho a
re y
our
exte
rnal
par
tner
s?
Whe
n w
as th
e m
ost r
ecen
t pee
r re
view
con
duct
ed?
24
44
b.
Wha
t int
erna
l pee
r rev
iew
mod
erat
ion
proc
esse
s ar
e th
ere?
(For
e.g
. ass
essm
ent m
oder
atio
n, d
oubl
e m
arki
ng, e
xter
nal m
arki
ng)
44
44
c.
Wha
t ben
chm
arki
ng o
f lea
rnin
g st
anda
rds
and/
or
asse
ssm
ent s
tand
ards
aga
inst
sim
ilar c
ours
es o
f st
udy
offe
red
by o
ther
hig
her e
duca
tion
prov
ider
s is
un
derta
ken?
33
33
d.
Wha
t pro
cess
es a
re in
pla
ce to
ens
ure
confi
dent
ialit
y, s
ecur
ity o
f dat
a an
d ca
libra
tion
of
asse
ssm
ent?
44
44
Mea
n In
stitu
tiona
l Res
pons
e3.
253.
753.
75
AB
CD
EF
GP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
res
International Peer Review Benchmarking for Quality Higher Education42
AKO AOTEAROA, National Office | PO Box 756, Wellington 6140, New Zealand Phone +64 4 801 0808 | Fax +64 4 801 2682 | Email [email protected] | Web www.akoaotearoa.ac.nz
ISBN 978-1-927202-87-6 (Online) | 978-1-927202-88-3 (Print)